So-called smart guns are anything but.  Who among us has a computer that runs flawlessly, aside from needing electricity, and constant vigilance against malware and other malicious software, right?

Just imagine what a “smart gun” would be like with sensitive computer electronics inside.

You want yet another reason why so-called “smart guns” aren’t so smart?

(The UK Register) – What if, instead of trying to control the sale of guns – a political impossibility in America – weapon use were enforced by a complex combination of electronics, WiFi communications and policy enforcement?

That’s what researchers from the University of Delaware are proposing, asking in essence whether technology offers a way to hack around the Second Amendment. In this paper at Arxiv, Marcos Portnoi and Chien-Chung Shen of the university’s Department of Computer and Information Science propose a combination of wireless security and encrypted broadcast to enforce gun safety.

Wireless-Delimited Secure Zones with Encrypted Attribute-Based Broadcast for Safe Firearms draws on the idea that if computers are now reliable enough for cars, medicine and fly-by-wire aircraft, they are probably reliable enough to provide a framework to cut down mass shootings.

Because we know that criminals are all going to be packing “smart” guns that can be disabled by radio frequency messages, right?

More skittle-crapping magic unicorn make-believe in the anti-gun liberals’ utopia.

11 thoughts on “SMART GUNS = DUMB IDEA: Electronic hack to disable “smart” guns proposed…”
  1. They can’t even make a reliable electronic voting system or a health insurance sign-up system that works right.

    And they want us to trust our defense to an even more esoteric futuristic system?


  2. Here’s a concept: How about smart politician technology that uses wireless delimited secure zones and attribute based broadcast to wire each politician’s mouth shut when ever they are about to lie or violate the Constitution.

  3. I guess it just does not occur to these pinheads that people could just find a way around it, so their gun could not be disabled.

    1. “Copyright chips” for VCRs were mandated by Congress in the 80s. People simply removed those “chips” so they could record copyrighted material. It wont be hard for Gangbangers to do the same with “Smart chips” in guns.

  4. If they can “jailbreak” stolen cell phones, I’m guessing that, by the time so called “smart” gun technology becomes readily available, the hacks will be too. How long did it take to get around the fingerprint smart phone security? 72 hours after it was released as I recall.

  5. I don’t think some of you are getting how dangerous this could be. When they come to take your guns, (and they will after they force this technology), all they have to do is turn your guns off remotely, kick in your door and scoop your guns up. Disarmament through technology, scary, huh?

    1. Same thing I was thinking Chris…. The 2nd Amendment exists so that the Citizens have the means to fight against the government, should that governemnt ever turn against the people… Therfore, it is a VIOLATION OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT for that government to have the ability to turn off your gun!

  6. I agree it’s scary, like “Halloween” or “Friday the 13th,” but it’ll NEVER happen.
    The reason I’m so sure is because of my faith in the market. They can wish the idea into being and fund the product into existence, but they can’t force it into the hands of the citizens.
    No one is going to buy this garbage.
    I take that back…some people might. Perhaps a “smart gun” is a legitimate means for a convicted felon to work their way back to restoring their natural rights after release?
    Perhaps a smart gun is a legitimate training tool for a novice or child?
    But overall, this technology is a classic example of a solution in search of a problem.
    It won’t be accepted as a mainstream product unless/until all manner of law enforcement, military, and other critical need markets embrace it.
    This will never happen because it introduces a potential point of failure in a mission critical component without providing any additional value to achieving the mission.

Comments are closed.